California Senate Bill 743
Generated by GPT-5-miniExpansion Funnel Raw 71 → Dedup 0 → NER 0 → Enqueued 0
| California Senate Bill 743 | |
|---|---|
| Title | California Senate Bill 743 |
| Enacted | 2013 |
| Author | Senator Darrell Steinberg |
| Code | Public Resources Code amendments |
| Status | implemented |
California Senate Bill 743 is a 2013 California statute authored by Darrell Steinberg that changed how certain impacts are measured under the California Environmental Quality Act. The bill directed the Governor of California and the California Natural Resources Agency to revise guidance for environmental review to focus on metrics other than automobile vehicle delay. It catalyzed shifts in urban planning and transportation planning practice across jurisdictions including Los Angeles County, San Francisco, and Sacramento.
Background
The bill emerged amid debates involving proponents such as Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (California), advocates like California League of Conservation Voters, and critics from entities including the California Chamber of Commerce. Legislative negotiation involved committees chaired by members of the California State Senate and the California State Assembly and referenced reports from agencies such as the California Air Resources Board and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. The impetus reflected tensions documented in studies by institutions such as the University of California, Berkeley, RAND Corporation, and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine about auto-centric measures like level of service used in Los Angeles Metro corridors and suburban Orange County arterials.
Provisions
The statute amended the Public Resources Code to instruct the Governor of California to develop technical methods that permit use of alternative metrics for transportation impacts in environmental review. Provisions enabled lead agencies such as the City and County of San Francisco, County of Los Angeles, and City of San Diego to use vehicle miles traveled metrics rather than traditional delay-focused measures used by agencies like the California Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area). The bill authorized coordination with entities including the California Air Resources Board, California Department of Transportation, and regional planning bodies like the Southern California Association of Governments to ensure alignment with climate targets set by Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32.
Implementation and Guidelines
Implementation was led by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, which issued technical advisory guidance and updates to the CEQA Guidelines. The guidance recommended vehicle miles traveled as a screening metric and advised localities from City of Sacramento to City of Oakland on thresholds of significance. The process involved stakeholder consultations with organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Regional Transportation Plan agencies, and academic partners at University of California, Los Angeles and Stanford University. Tools referenced included travel demand models used by the Southern California Association of Governments and data sources like the American Community Survey and the California Household Travel Survey.
Effects on Environmental Review and CEQA
The change altered project-level and program-level environmental analyses under California Environmental Quality Act by shifting emphasis from delay metrics used by transportation agencies to metrics aligned with greenhouse gas policy. Lead agencies including City of Long Beach, County of Alameda, and transit agencies such as Bay Area Rapid Transit adjusted environmental impact reports to reflect reduced reliance on level of service metrics. The amendment interacted with statewide policies like Executive Order S-3-05 and climate frameworks developed by the California Air Resources Board, influencing reviews for projects tied to funding sources such as Federal Transit Administration grants and California Department of Housing and Community Development programs.
Legal Challenges and Litigation
Implementation prompted litigation involving municipal plaintiffs, environmental organizations, and business coalitions. Cases filed in venues like the California Court of Appeal and Sacramento County Superior Court questioned procedural adequacy, threshold criteria, and the interpretation of CEQA obligations. Parties included organizations such as the California Building Industry Association, Coalition for Adequate Review, and Sierra Club affiliates. Litigation often referenced precedent from cases adjudicated at the California Supreme Court and involved amici from entities like the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties.
Reception and Criticism
The bill drew praise from climate advocates including 350.org affiliates and urbanists connected to California Planning and Development Report for aligning CEQA with emissions reduction goals. Transit advocates linked to TransitCenter and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority planners highlighted benefits for infill and transit-oriented development projects. Critics such as representatives from California Trucking Association and some neighborhood coalitions argued the changes could undercount localized congestion and pedestrian safety impacts. Editorial positions appeared in outlets like the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and policy journals from Public Policy Institute of California.
Impact on Planning and Transportation Policy
The statute influenced local general plans, zoning decisions, and regional transportation plans in jurisdictions from San Jose to Fresno. It incentivized projects favored by entities like California Housing Finance Agency and developers active in Bay Area transit corridors to pursue compact infill developments consistent with Sustainable Communities Strategy objectives crafted by regional planning agencies. Over time, practice shifts affected coordination among agencies including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area), Southern California Association of Governments, and the California Transportation Commission in aligning performance metrics with statewide climate and land use goals.